Climate Control

A letter in response to Michael Specter’s article (May 14, 2012)

I count myself among the people who fear the experimental fixes that Michael Specter discusses in his article on geoengineering (“The Climate Fixers,” May 14th). We have little conception of what will happen as the climate warms, but we have even less of an idea what will come from radical “solutions” to climate change that are now in development. Because we are aware of dangerous technologies, we should study them—an argument similar to the one in favor of Ron Fouchier’s publishing his work on H5N1, which Specter discussed in an earlier piece (“The Deadliest Virus,” March 12th). Isn’t there a chance that scientists will one day regret some of these geoengineering projects? When will we recognize how little control we have over our innovations? Furthermore, the gist of this article reflects a much deeper problem in the climate-change dialogue, which the piece’s subhead—“Is there a technological solution to global warming?”—sums up well. Reflective particles that cost less than ten billion dollars are deemed solutions. In the piece, Dr. Ken Caldeira notes that “most economists say that solving this problem is one or two per cent of G.D.P.” But talk by scientists and economists of “solving” climate change is as disastrous as waiting and watching under business as usual.

Andrew Gerhart

Palo Alto, Calif.

Sign up to get the best of The New Yorker delivered to your inbox every day